Quite honestly, is there any reason to go to all these machinations? If there is a goal to keep the parking assets in the public domain, yet monetize the value of the assets to fund the pension system then there is a far more simple answer.. Is there any reason they can’t do effectively like the water authority did. If the parking assets generate a valuable revenue stream then they could be used to float a revenue bond and then have the proceeds sent over to the city to then go to into the pension fund. Be clear, I’m not advocating that, but is that not a far more simple path to the same exact point as the latest proposal. It is doing exactly what this latest plan is proposing with a lot less hassle and a lot less confusing lines of authority between the pension board/parking authority and the city. On top of that there would be no need to worry about vague asset valuations and legal issues that I think would get in the way of this anyway.
And someone sent over some magic wonk dust to land on Potter at the city paper. First today he was counting census blocks, but then expounds on this new parking proposal.
What might be worth noting, is that talk of selling pension assets is apparently infectious. Down in Cinci last week there was a whole story on an idea being floated to sell their parking assets in order to fund their public pension mess. Just note that their pension problems are nowhere near as bad as ours, but that is another story. They also have mentioned selling a rail line publicly owned down there. Any spare rail lines around here? We must own something else that is fungible around here. What I find interesting down in Cincinnati is that one little article on just the idea being floated has 69 comments as I type. Is there any place in town here where the ‘debate’ over the much more concrete plan to sell parking assets is similarly debated publicly. We generate a few comments from the wonkerati in town here… but nothing like that type of public participation.